Jean Carlos SantosGeraldo Wilson Fernandes  Editors

Measuring Arthropod BiodiversityA Handbook of Sampling Methods

Measuring Arthropod Biodiversity

Jean Carlos Santos • Geraldo Wilson FernandesEditors

Measuring Arthropod BiodiversityA Handbook of Sampling Methods

ISBN 978-3-030-53225-3 ISBN 978-3-030-53226-0 (eBook)https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53226-0

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AGThe registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

EditorsJean Carlos SantosDepartment of EcologyUniversidade Federal de SergipeSão Cristóvão, Sergipe, Brazil

Geraldo Wilson FernandesDepartment of Genetics, Ecology and EvolutionInstituto de Ciências Biológicas Universidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

v

Preface

In 1988, E. O. Wilson, in his book Biodiversity, stated: “The biological diversity most threatened is also the least explored, and there is no prospect at the moment that the scientific task will be completed before a large fraction of the species van-ish.” He still goes further to state: “the magnitude and control of biological diversity is not just a central problem of evolutionary biology; it is one of the key problems of science as a whole. At present, there is no way of knowing whether there are 5, 10, or 30 million species on Earth. There is no theory that can predict what this number might turn out to be. […] unless an effort is made to understand all of diver-sity, we will fall far short of understanding life in these important respects, and due to the accelerating extinction of species, much of our opportunity will slip away forever.” Given the unprecedented levels of human disturbances on the planet, and following the reasoning of E. O. Wilson, it is vital to assess insect biodiversity and predict anthropic pressures on them to provide sound science-based data to build solid and long-lasting policy measures for their conservation and sustainable eco-system services.

Convinced of E. O. Wilson’s brilliant words, 93 authors from different institu-tions have collaborated to bring forward this book which we believe will aid in the task of identifying this central question of “how many species exist on Earth?” Thus, in this book, we have attempted to gather key state-of-the-art techniques and methodologies appropriate to sampling arthropods in the field according to the emerging ecological trends. Arthropoda is the most diverse taxon on the Earth. This group’s biodiversity represents one of the most marvelous and astonishing facets of organic evolution in our planet. Unfortunately, this phylum is also proportionally little known. There is a wide range of sampling or survey methods for investigating different arthropod groups, where each method has its own merits and limitations. In the first part of this book, we focus on chapters discussing sampling methods and techniques for insects, after which, in the second part, we concentrate on arachnids and, finally in the third part, on guilds and functional groups. The book provides an important review for zoologists, entomologists, arachnologists, ecologists, students, researchers, and anyone else interested in arthropod sciences. It helps to choose the most appropriate survey methodology according to each arthropod taxon. We hope

vi

that this book will contribute to the advancement of knowledge regarding field assessments and conservation strategy of arthropod species. We expect also that a future edition of this book will include methods for additional arthropod taxa, including other freshwater and marine groups, e.g., shrimps and crabs, as well as other neglected groups, e.g., centipedes and millipedes.

São Cristóvão, Sergipe, Brazil Jean C. Santos Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil G. Wilson Fernandes

Preface

vii

Contents

Part I

1 Arthropods: Why It Is So Crucial to Know Their Biodiversity? . . . . 3Jean Carlos Santos, Wanessa Rejane de Almeida, and Geraldo Wilson Fernandes

2 Sampling and Analysis Methods for Ant Diversity Assessment . . . . . 13Jacques Delabie, Elmo Koch, Pavel Dodonov, Bianca Caitano, Wesley DaRocha, Benoit Jahyny, Maurice Leponce, Jonathan Majer, and Clea Mariano

3 Bees: How and Why to Sample Them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Laurence Packer and Gerome Darla-West

4 Social Wasp Sampling Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Fábio Prezoto, Tatiane Tagliatti Maciel, Bruno Corrêa Barbosa, and Carlos Eduardo Sarmiento

5 Sampling Methods for Butterflies (Lepidoptera) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101André V. L. Freitas, Jessie P. Santos, Augusto H. B. Rosa, Cristiano A. Iserhard, Aline Richter, Ricardo R. Siewert, Patrícia E. Gueratto, Junia Y. O. Carreira, and Giselle M. Lourenço

6 Sampling Methods for Beetles (Coleoptera) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125Luciana Iannuzzi, Carolina Nunes Liberal, Thamyrys Bezerra de Souza, Thais Giovannini Pellegrini, Janaina Camara Siqueira da Cunha, Ricardo Koroiva, Larissa Simões Corrêa de Albuquerque, Fábio Correia Costa, Renato Portela Salomão, Artur Campos Dália Maia, and Fernando Willyan Trevisan Leivas

7 Sampling Methods for Adult Flies (Diptera) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187Brian V. Brown

viii

8 Sampling Methods of True Fruit Flies (Tephritidae) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205Vicente Hernández-Ortiz, Mónica Hernández-López, and José F. Dzul-Cauich

9 Sampling Methods for Dragonflies and Damselflies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223Rodrigo Roucourt Cezário, Paloma Pena Firme, Gabrielle C. Pestana, Diogo S. Vilela, Leandro Juen, Adolfo Cordero-Rivera, and Rhainer Guillermo

10 Sampling Methods for Termites (Insecta: Blattaria: Isoptera) . . . . . 241Reginaldo Constantino

11 Measuring Orthoptera Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257Carlos Frankl Sperber, Edison Zefa, Elliott Centeno de Oliveira, Lucas Denadai de Campos, Márcio Perez Bolfarini, Marcos Fianco, Marcos Gonçalves Lhano, Natállia Vicente, Neucir Szinwelski, Pedro Guilherme Barrios de Souza Dias, Riuler Corrêa Acosta, and Victor Mateus Prasniewski

12 Hemiptera Sampling Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289Cristiano F. Schwertner, Renan Carrenho, Felipe F. F. Moreira, and Gerasimos Cassis

13 Collecting and Sampling Methods for Thrips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315Estevão Alves Silva, Elison Fabricio B. Lima, Rita Marullo, and Arturo Goldaracena Lafuente

Part II

14 Techniques for Collection and Sampling of Pseudoscorpions (Arthropoda: Arachnida) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341Edwin Bedoya-Roqueme and Everton Tizo-Pedroso

15 Standardized Sampling Methods and Protocols for Harvestman and Spider Assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365Ana Lúcia Tourinho and Nancy Lo-Man-Hung

Part III

16 Sampling Galls and Galling Arthropods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403Walter Santos de Araújo, Maria Virgínia Urso-Guimarães, Milton de Souza Mendonça Jr, and Jean Carlos Santos

17 Collecting, Rearing, and Preserving Leaf- Mining Insects . . . . . . . . . 439Carlos Lopez-Vaamonde, Natalia Kirichenko, and Issei Ohshima

18 Canopy Insect Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467Timothy Schowalter and Jung-Tai Chao

Contents

ix

19 Sampling Methods for Soil and Litter Fauna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495Grizelle González, Maria Fernanda Barberena-Arias, Wei Huang, and Claudia M. Ospina-Sánchez

20 Sampling Methods for Aquatic Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523Marcos Callisto, Riccardo Mugnai, Diego M. P. Castro, and Marden S. Linares

21 Sampling Methods for Blood-Feeding Insects Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . 545Álvaro Eduardo Eiras, Elis Paula de Almeida Batista, and Marcelo Carvalho de Resende

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583

Contents

xi

Contributors

Riuler  Corrêa  Acosta Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Animal, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

Larissa Simões Corrêa de Albuquerque Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Cidade Universitária, Recife, PE, Brazil

Elis Paula de Almeida Batista Laboratory of Innovation Technologies in Vector Control, Department of Parasitology, Biological Sciences Institute, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Wanessa  Rejane  de Almeida Department of Ecology, Universidade Federal de Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Sergipe, Brazil

Walter Santos de Araújo Departamento de Biologia Geral, Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade Estadual de Montes Claros, Montes Claros, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Maria Fernanda Barberena-Aerias School of Natural Sciences and Technology, Universidad Ana G. Méndez, Gurabo, Puerto Rico

Bruno Corrêa Barbosa Laboratório de Ecologia Comportamental e Bioacústica, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil

Edwin  Bedoya-Roqueme Programa de Pós-graduação, Recursos Naturais do Cerrado, RENAC, Universidade Estadual de Goiás, Anápolis, GO, Brazil

Research Group on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity BIODIMARC, Study Group on Arachnology PALPATORES, University of Cordoba, Córdoba, Colombia

Márcio  Perez  Bolfarini Departamento de Ecologia e Biologia Evolutiva, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

Brian V. Brown Entomology Section, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA, USA

xii

Bianca  Caitano Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação da Biodiversidade, Universidade Estadual Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil

Marcos  Callisto Laboratório de Ecologia de Bentos, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Lucas Denadai de Campos Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

Junia Y. O. Carreira Depto. Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Unicamp, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

Renan Carrenho Museu de Zoologia, Universidae de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

Gerasimos Cassis Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Diego  M.  P.  Castro Laboratório de Ecologia de Bentos, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Rodrigo Roucourt Cezário LESTES Lab, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

University of São Paulo—USP, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

Jung-Tai Chao Taiwan Forestry Research Institute, Taipei, Taiwan , ROC

Reginaldo  Constantino Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade de Brasília, Brasilia, Brazil

Adolfo Cordero-Rivera ECO-EVO Lab, University of Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain

Fábio  Correia  Costa Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Cidade Universitária, Recife, PE, Brazil

Janaina Camara Siqueira da Cunha Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

Gerome  Darla-West Department of Biology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Wesley  DaRocha Laboratório de Mirmecologia, Centro de Pesquisa do Cacau/CEPLAC, Itabuna, Bahia, Brazil

Jacques  Delabie Laboratório de Mirmecologia, Centro de Pesquisa do Cacau/CEPLAC, Itabuna, Bahia, Brazil

Departamento de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais, Universidade Estadual Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil

Contributors

xiii

Pavel Dodonov Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Rua Barão de Jeremoabo, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil

José  F.  Dzul-Cauich Red de Interacciones Multitróficas, Instituto de Ecología A.C., Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico

Álvaro Eduardo Eiras Laboratory of Innovation Technologies in Vector Control, Department of Parasitology, Biological Sciences Institute, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Geraldo  Wilson  Fernandes Department of Genetics, Ecology and Evolution, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Marcos  Fianco Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Biológicas (Entomologia), Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

Paloma Pena Firme LESTES Lab, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

André V. L. Freitas Depto. Biologia Animal and Museu de Zoologia, Instituto de Biologia, Unicamp, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

Grizelle  González USDA-FS, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, Río Piedras, Puerto Rico

Patrícia  E.  Gueratto Depto. Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Unicamp, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

Rhainer Guillermo LESTES Lab, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

Mónica  Hernández-López Red de Interacciones Multitróficas, Instituto de Ecología A.C., Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico

Vicente  Hernández-Ortiz Red de Interacciones Multitróficas, Instituto de Ecología A.C., Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico

Wei Huang Department of Environmental Sciences, Nanjing Forestry University, College of Biology and the Environment, University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras, Puerto Rico

Luciana  Iannuzzi Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Cidade Universitária, Recife, PE, Brazil

Cristiano A. Iserhard Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Animal, Depto. de Ecologia, Zoologia e Genética, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Benoit  Jahyny Laboratório de Mirmecologia do Sertão, Colegiado de Ciências Biológicas, Campus de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco, Petrolina, Pernambuco, Brazil

Contributors

xiv

Leandro  Juen Laboratory of Ecology and Conservation, Federal University of Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil

Natalia  Kirichenko Sukachev Institute of Forest, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Krasnoyarsk, Russia

Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk, Russia

Elmo Koch Laboratório de Mirmecologia, Centro de Pesquisa do Cacau/CEPLAC, Itabuna, Bahia, Brazil

Ricardo Koroiva Departamento de Sistemática e Ecologia, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, PB, Brazil

Arturo  Goldaracena  Lafuente Earth and Life Institute—ELIB, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain La Neuve, Belgium

Fernando  Willyan  Trevisan  Leivas Departamento de Biodiversidade, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Setor Palotina, Jardim Dallas, Palotina, PR, Brazil

Maurice  Leponce Biodiversity Monitoring and Assessment, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (RBINS), Brussels, Belgium

Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium

Marcos Gonçalves Lhano Centro de Ciências da Natureza, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

Carolina Nunes Liberal Departamento de Sistemática e Ecologia, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, PB, Brazil

Elison. Fabricio B. Lima Universidade Federal do Piauí, Campus Amílcar Ferreira Sobral—CAFS, Floriano, PI, Brazil

Marden  S.  Linares Laboratório de Ecologia de Bentos, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Nancy Lo-Man-Hung Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

Carlos Lopez-Vaamonde INRAE, UR0633 Zoologie Forestière, Orléans, France

Institut de Recherche sur la Biologie de l’Insecte UMR 7261, CNRS—Université de Tours, Tours, France

Giselle M. Lourenço Departamento de Genética, Ecologia e Evolução, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil

Tatiane Tagliatti Maciel Laboratório de Ecologia Comportamental e Bioacústica, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil

Contributors

xv

Artur Campos Dália Maia Departamento de Sistemática e Ecologia, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, PB, Brazil

Jonathan Majer School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

School of Biological Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

Clea Mariano Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil

Rita  Marullo Dipartimento di Agraria, Università degli Studi Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy

Felipe  F.  F.  Moreira Laboratório de Biodiversidade Entomológica, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

Riccardo  Mugnai Laboratório BIOCICLOS, Centro de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais, Universidade Federal do Maranhão, Chapadinha, Maranhão, Brazil

Issei Ohshima Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Kyoto Prefectural University, Kyoto, Japan

Elliott Centeno de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Capão do Leão, RS, Brazil

Claudia  M.  Ospina-Sánchez USDA-FS, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, Río Piedras, Puerto Rico

Laurence Packer Department of Biology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Thais Giovannini Pellegrini Departamento de Entomologia, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Campus Universitário da Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras, MG, Brazil

Gabrielle C. Pestana LESTES Lab, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

Victor  Mateus  Prasniewski Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação da Biodiversidade, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Cuiabá, MT, Brazil

Fábio  Prezoto Laboratório de Ecologia Comportamental e Bioacústica, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil

Marcelo Carvalho de Resende Laboratory of Innovation Technologies in Vector Control, Department of Parasitology, Biological Sciences Institute, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Department of Entomology, Ministry of Health of Brazil, National Health Foundation, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Contributors

xvi

Aline  Richter Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Animal, Depto. de Ecologia, Zoologia e Genética, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Augusto  H.  B.  Rosa Depto. Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Unicamp, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

Renato Portela Salomão Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Manaus, AM, Brazil

Jean Carlos Santos Department of Ecology, Universidade Federal de Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Sergipe, Brazil

Jessie  P.  Santos Depto. Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Unicamp, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil

Carlos Eduardo Sarmiento Laboratorio de Sistemática y Biología Comparada de Insectos, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Edificio 425, Bogotá, Colombia

Timothy Schowalter Entomology Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

Cristiano F. Schwertner Departamento de Ecologia e Biologia Evolutiva, Instituto de Ciências Ambientais, Químicas e Farmacêuticas, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Diadema, SP, Brazil

Museu de Zoologia, Universidae de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

Ricardo R. Siewert Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil

Estevão Alves Silva Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia Goiano, Campus Urutaí, Urutaí, GO, Brazil

Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Nova Xavantina, MT, Brazil

Pedro  Guilherme  Barrios  de Souza  Dias Departamento de Entomologia do Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

Milton  de Souza  Mendonça Jr Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Thamyrys Bezerra de Souza Instituto Nacional da Mata Atlântica, Santa Teresa, ES, Brazil

Carlos  Frankl  Sperber Laboratório de Orthopterologia, Departamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, Brazil

Neucir  Szinwelski Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná, Cascavel, PR, Brazil

Contributors

xvii

Everton Tizo-Pedroso Centro de Ensino e Aprendizagem em Rede, Laboratório de Ecologia Comportamental de Aracnídeos, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Recursos Naturais do Cerrado, Universidade Estadual de Goiás, Anápolis, GO, Brazil

Ana  Lúcia  Tourinho NEBAM—Núcleo de Estudos da Biodiversidade da Amazônia Matogrossense, Instituto de Ciências Naturais, Humanas e Sociais, Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso, Sinop, MT, Brazil

Maria  Virgínia  Urso-Guimarães Departamento de Biologia, Laboratório de Sistemática de Diptera, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil

Natállia  Vicente Laboratório de Orthopterologia, Departamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, Brazil

Diogo S. Vilela LESTES Lab, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

University of São Paulo—USP, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

Edison  Zefa Departamento de Zoologia e Genética, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Capão do Leão, RS, Brazil

Contributors

Part I

3© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021J. C. Santos, G. W. Fernandes (eds.), Measuring Arthropod Biodiversity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53226-0_1

Chapter 1Arthropods: Why It Is So Crucial to Know Their Biodiversity?

Jean Carlos Santos, Wanessa Rejane de Almeida, and Geraldo Wilson Fernandes

1.1 Arthropod Biodiversity

The phylum Arthropoda is the taxa with the highest evolutionary success of all of Earth’s diversity (Pisani 2009; Minelli et al. 2013) and Insecta, the largest and most diverse taxa within the Arthropoda (Grimaldi and Engel 2005). Divergence of this phylum is estimated to have originated about 520 million years ago (Giribet and Edgecombe 2019). Arthropods constitute a monophyletic group that is well sup-ported by morphological characteristics, such as an articulated chitinous exoskele-ton divided into repetitive appendages and separated by arthrodial membrane and by molecular phylogenetics (Giribet and Edgecombe 2019). All extant arthropods are placed in two large monophyletic groups: Chelicerata (e.g., spiders, mites, sea spiders, scorpions, and horseshoe crabs) and Mandibulata [myriapods (e.g., centi-pedes and millipedes), insects, and crustaceans (e.g., shrimps and crabs)] (Giribet and Edgecombe 2019) (Fig. 1.1).

For decades, researchers have tried to unravel how many species (described and mostly undescribed) of arthropods are there on Earth (Hamilton et al. 2010; May 2010). There is a range of estimates in the scientific literature (Hamilton et al. 2010, 2013; May 2010; Stork et al. 2015); however some predictions consider only insects (Gaston 1991), and these estimates too differ wildly (see Stork 2018). Erwin (1982) was the first study to estimate the total numbers of arthropod species. This visionary paper estimated 30 million species of arthropods in the tropics alone (Erwin 1982). But as to the wide range of estimates, Hamilton et al. (2010), for instance, predict merely 3.7 million and 2.5 million tropical arthropod species. Using probabilistic

J. C. Santos (*) · W. R. de Almeida Department of Ecology, Universidade Federal de Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Sergipe, Brazil

G. W. Fernandes Department of Genetics, Ecology and Evolution, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

4

Fig. 1.1 Some examples of arthropods (Arthropoda): (a) crab (Malacostraca: Decapoda), (b) mil-lipede (Myriapoda: Diplopoda), (c, d) spider (Arachnida: Araneae), (e) fly (Insecta: Diptera), (f) bee (Insecta: Hymenoptera), (g) beetle (Insecta: Coleoptera), and (h) butterfly (Insecta: Lepidoptera)

J. C. Santos et al.

5

models, Hamilton et al. (2013) estimated global arthropod species to be 6.1 million, with a range between 3.6 and 11.4 million. The most current estimate (Stork 2018) predicts 7.0 and 5.5  million species for arthropods and insects, respectively. According to Catalogue of Life from Zhang (2013, 2020), the estimated number of species known to taxonomists is 1,257,040 species for Arthropoda and 1,053,578 species for Insecta. This represents, respectively, 82% and 69% of all animal diver-sity (1,525,728 spp.). Considering a global estimate of 10.9 million species globally (Mora et al. 2011), much of this diversity can be attributed to arthropods.

Arthropods in addition to their diversity are also ubiquitous, abundant, and func-tionally important components of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, occupying var-ied habitats and niches along a range of temporal and spatial scales (Price et al. 2011). In terms of biomass, arthropods are the single most important group of ani-mals, representing a range of 0.2 to 1.0 gigatons of carbon (Gt C) for terrestrial and marine arthropods. This represents 46% of all animal biomass on the planet (Bar-On et  al. 2018). Arthropods are considered key components because of their critical ecological functions. In terms of interactions, arthropods’ relationships with other organisms and with the environment are extraordinary (Fig.  1.2), e.g., ant-plant interactions (Del-Claro et al. 2018) and pollination mutualisms between insects and plants (New 2017) evidenced by the fact that a majority of plant species are polli-nated by insects. Wardhaugh (2015) suggests that over 350,000 described arthropod species, which represents 30% of arthropod species, may regularly visit flowers to feed, mate, or obtain other resources. Another example are the interactions of arthropods and soil (e.g., meso- and macrofauna), crucial in maintaining soil fertil-ity (Culliney 2013; Menta and Remelli 2020), including agricultural systems (Roy et al. 2018). Arthropod species may also represent an important component of litter/soil communities (~85% of all soil species) (Culliney 2013). Furthermore, arthro-pod richness in tropical rainforests can be huge (Basset et al. 2012). Arthropods can belong to different ecological and functional groups, e.g., decomposers, dispersers, herbivores, parasitoids, predators, and pollinators (Gullan and Cranston 2014; Del Claro and Guillermo 2019).

According to Noriega et  al. (2018), arthropods (especially insects) are funda-mental to regulation across many ecosystem services due to their ecological func-tions, e.g., provisioning, supporting, regulating, and cultural services. Arthropods provide several economic services such as food chain supplementation and have uses as medical and industrial products for humans (Ratcliffe et al. 2011; Macadam and Stockan 2015; Noriega et al. 2018). Beyond that, in natural and agroecosys-tems, in urban areas, and in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, arthropods perform many important ecosystem services, such as climate regulation, decomposition, pollination, matter and nutrient cycling, energy flow, pathogen and pest suppres-sion, population regulation, seed dispersal, soil fertility regulation, biodiversity pro-tection, environmental and ecological bioindicators, tourism and recreational services, and scientific, educational, cultural (art, music, and literature), and techno-logical tools, among many other services (Gerlach et  al. 2013; Macadam and Stockan 2015; Novais et al. 2016; Schowalter et al. 2018; Samways 2019; Cardoso et al. 2020). On the other hand, arthropod species can also have major impacts on

1 Arthropods: Why It Is So Crucial to Know Their Biodiversity?

6

Fig. 1.2 Arthropods are megadiverse organisms in species and relationships with other organisms. Arthropods are parasites of many species such as (a) ticks, an ectoparasite of frogs and other ver-tebrates, (b) parasitic mites on a grasshopper, and (c) some plant-parasitic insects can induce galls on plants causing an abnormal growth of cells and tissues. (d) Herbivorous insects can cause sev-eral damages in the reproductive and vegetative plant parts. (e) Insects are excellent pollinators and they have many mutualistic interactions with plants. (f) Ants interact with many organisms, includ-ing aphids; in this type of interaction, ants consume aphid exudates, and in return, aphids gain protection against natural enemies. Arthropods are important predators in ecosystems, such as (g) this spider preying on a butterfly and (h) this hemipteran preying on an insect

J. C. Santos et al.

7

human activities, e.g., economy, agriculture, health, etc. For instance, arthropod pests (e.g., insects and mites) destroy between 18 and 26% of annual crop produc-tion worldwide (Culliney 2014), resulting in economic losses of $ 470 billion annu-ally. Several emerging infectious diseases (e.g., malaria, leishmaniasis, trypanosomiasis, borreliosis) are transmitted by arthropod vectors (e.g., louse, mites, mosquitoes, flies, fleas, and ticks), which are responsible for morbidity, mor-tality, and economic loss worldwide (Goddard 2008; Bernard et al. 2015). Otherwise, only ca. 1% of all known insect species cause crop losses of 20–80% globally, and fewer than 1% of mosquito species transmit diseases.

The number of studies indicating that arthropods are particularly vulnerable to the biodiversity loss crisis is augmenting. Human impacts are the cause of current arthropod declines, potentially leading them to species extinction. The arthropod declines and extinction are driven by many factors, such as habitat loss and frag-mentation, invasive species, pollution, climate warming, co-extinction of dependent species, and overexploitation (Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019; Cardoso et al. 2020). Given their huge ecological importance, the loss of arthropods in the current biodiversity crisis is of particular concern, because arthropods can be highly sensi-tive to anthropogenic disturbance in comparison to vertebrates or plants (Thomas et al. 2004). Beyond that, many arthropod species are highly specialized in other organisms, e.g., animal parasites (Goater et  al. 2014) and plant herbivores (Schoonhoven et al. 2005). If pessimist predictions of loss are realized, anthropo-genic activities may have a profound impact on arthropod diversity and on the loss of ecosystem services they provide (Cardoso et al. 2020), reduction in arthropod abundances (Hallmann et al. 2017; Lister and Garcia 2018), restructuring of food webs (Lister and Garcia 2018), and overall loss of diversity (Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019; Eisenhauer et al. 2019; Cardoso et al. 2020). All these shall lead to devastating effects on ecosystem functioning and deep impacts on ecosystem ser-vice provisioning. For instance, nearly 90% of flowering plant species, including almost 75% of the world’s major crops, are pollinated by insects (Klein et al. 2007). The value of insect pollination services is now being calculated for many countries around the world, but it is estimated to exceed $200 billion annually (Novais et al. 2016; Rader et al. 2016). For these reasons, we urgently need to accurately under-stand the diversity of arthropods before many species are extinct (Costello et  al. 2013). Given all this, information on their abundance, richness, and spatial and temporal distribution is severely limited and needs to be rectified.

1.2 How to Assess Arthropod Biodiversity

Despite the estimations of species and their importance, our knowledge of arthro-pod species diversity is still considered to be neglected and poor for most parts of the world, especially for tropical ecosystems (Stork 2018). This is an important limiting factor in the advancement of knowledge on global biological diversity. For that reason, collecting and trapping arthropods are perhaps the most basic and

1 Arthropods: Why It Is So Crucial to Know Their Biodiversity?

8

necessary ways to access this biodiversity. Therefore, through the sampling meth-ods and techniques in this book, researchers can discover how many and which species are present in several types of ecosystems; they can monitor natural popula-tions or pest or beneficial arthropod populations in agroecosystems, conduct rapid surveys, and discover new species (Nageleisen and Bouget 2009; Samways et al. 2010; Larsen 2016; McCravy 2018). It is absolutely impossible to attempt to collect all species from a group as large as Arthropoda using only one sampling technique. This is due to the life span, biology, life histories, and ecology of the different arthropod taxa and species. Therefore, we must consider sampling specific arthro-pod groups through several methods, e.g., a method for sampling plant-inhabiting arthropod in target plants of tropical forest understory (Lopes et al. 2019).

Our intention in editing this book is to provide the readers, e.g., zoologists, ento-mologists, arachnologists, ecologists, students, and researchers, essential informa-tion on how to sample arthropod species or a particular taxon in the field, through different sets of methods and techniques. As you will see in our chapters, there are many kinds of methods, techniques, and traps for collecting arthropods. Some of these are simple apparatus (e.g., hand net), and others can be more elaborate (e.g., malaise trap). Some of the methods and techniques described in the chapters are excellent for catching several groups of arthropods and some other meant to only catch one particular taxon. The techniques described can also vary according to habitat complexity or temporal and spatial scales. The idea of this book is to guide you to make the most appropriate choice between the different types of techniques and also according to your taxonomic or functional target group, thus avoiding a mass collection or overkill of nontarget group and species. This also will increase your efficiency in the field and save time and money.

The book addresses researchers from the fields of biology, zoology, and ecology. Each chapter is organized to evaluate and describe the main sampling methods: an introductory overview on the group, field methods, materials and supplies, sampling protocol, effort needed, and benefits and limitations of the techniques. In addition, some chapters also contain additional information, such as specimen preparation and conservation, species identification, data collection and management (treat-ment, statistical analysis, interpretation), and ecological/conservation implications of arthropod communities. All chapters have been peer-reviewed. To provide a broad overview of the sampling methods, the book is structured in three main parts.

Part I provides an overview of the sampling methods for insect groups, which is subdivided into 12 chapters, highlighting the 4 largest insect groups: (1) Hymenoptera (ants, Chap. 2; bees, Chap. 3; and social wasps, Chap. 4); (2) Lepidoptera (butter-flies, Chap. 5); (3) Coleoptera (beetles, Chap. 6); and (4) Diptera (flies and mosqui-toes, Chap. 7, and fruit flies, Chap. 8). These “big four” insect groups constitute the most part of all living species on Earth. In addition, we have several interesting groups of insects: dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata, Chap. 9); termites (Blattodea, Chap. 10); grasshoppers, crickets, and katydids (Orthoptera, Chap. 11); hemipterans (Hemiptera, Chap. 12); and thrips (Thysanoptera, Chap. 13).

J. C. Santos et al.

9

Part II introduces the sampling methods for arachnids, especially for pseudoscor-pions (Pseudoscorpiones, Chap. 14) and spiders and other arachnids (Arachnida, Chap. 15).

The book ends with the Part III. The first two chapters show the sampling meth-ods of two important herbivore guilds. Chapter 16 provides information for gall- inducing arthropods and Chap. 17 for leaf-mining insects. Next, we divided the chapters into functional groups. Chapter 18 deals with canopy insects, Chap. 19 deals with soil and litter fauna, and Chap. 20 deals with aquatic insects. Finally, Chap. 21 introduces a special topic on vector insect diversity.

We hope you enjoy this book!

Acknowledgments We are grateful to Springer for believing in our vision on the need for this publication and their willingness to support us. We would like to express our special gratitude to all the authors. We are also grateful to the reviewers for all the comments (L. Viana, K. Del-Claro, and H.  M. T.  Silingardi), which improved the quality of this chapter. JCS. thanks the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq) grant process #312752/2018-0, while GWF thanks CNPq and Fapemig.

References

Bar-On YM, Phillips R, Milo R (2018) The biomass distribution on earth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115:6506–6511. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711842115

Basset Y, Cizek L, Cuenoud P et  al (2012) Arthropod diversity in a tropical forest. Science 338:1481–1484. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1226727

Bernard Q, Jaulhac B, Boulanger N (2015) Skin and arthropods: an effective interaction used by pathogens in vector-borne diseases. Eur J Dermatol 25:18–22. https://doi.org/10.1684/ejd.2015.2550

Cardoso P, Barton PS, Birkhofer K et al (2020) Scientists’ warning to humanity on insect extinc-tions. Biol Conserv 242:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108426

Costello MJ, May RM, Stork NE (2013) Can we name earth’s species before they go extinct? Science 339:413–416. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230318

Culliney TW (2013) Role of arthropods in maintaining soil fertility. Agriculture 3:629–659. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture3040629

Culliney TW (2014) Crop losses to arthropods. In: Pimentel D, Peshin R (eds) Integrated pest management. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7796-5_8

Del Claro K, Guillermo R (eds) (2019) Aquatic insects. Behavior and ecology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16327-3

Del-Claro K, Lange D, Torezan-Silingardi HM et al (2018) The complex ant–plant relationship within tropical ecological networks. In: Dáttilo W, Rico-Gray V (eds) Ecological networks in the tropics. Springer, Cham, pp 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68228-0_5

Eisenhauer N, Bonn A, Guerra CA (2019) Recognizing the quiet extinction of invertebrates. Nat Commun 10:50. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07916-1

Erwin TL (1982) Tropical forests: their richness in Coleoptera and other arthropod species. Coleopt Bull 36:74–75. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4007977

Gaston KJ (1991) The magnitude of global insect species richness. Conserv Biol 5:183–196Gerlach J, Samways M, Pryke J (2013) Terrestrial invertebrates as bioindicators: an over-

view of available taxonomic groups. J Insect Conserv 17:831–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-013-9565-9

1 Arthropods: Why It Is So Crucial to Know Their Biodiversity?

10

Giribet G, Edgecombe GD (2019) The phylogeny and evolutionary history of arthropods. Curr Biol 29:592–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.057

Goater TM, Goater CP, Esch GW (2014) Parasitism: the diversity and ecology of animal parasites, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Goddard J (ed) (2008) Infectious diseases and arthropods, 2nd edn. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-400-5

Grimaldi DA, Engel MS (2005) Evolution of the insects. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGullan PJ, Cranston PS (2014) The insects: an outline of entomology, 5th edn. Wiley-

Blackwell, OxfordHallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E et al (2017) More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in

total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS One 12:e0185809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809

Hamilton AJ, Basset Y, Benke KK et al (2010) Quantifying uncertainty in estimation of tropical arthropod species richness. Am Nat 176:90–95. https://doi.org/10.1086/652998

Hamilton AJ, Novotný V, Waters EK et al (2013) Estimating global arthropod species richness: refining probabilistic models using probability bounds analysis. Oecologia 171:357–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2434-5

Klein AM, Vaissière BE, Cane J et al (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc R Soc B 274:303–313. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721

Larsen TH (ed) (2016) Core standardized methods for rapid biological field assessment. Conservation International, Arlington

Lister BC, Garcia A (2018) Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rain-forest food web. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115:10397–10406. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1722477115

Lopes MC, Lamarre GPA, Baraloto C et al (2019) The Amazonas-trap: a new method for sam-pling plant-inhabiting arthropod communities in tropical forest understory. Entomol Exp Appl 167:534–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12797

Macadam CR, Stockan JA (2015) More than just fish food: ecosystem services provided by fresh-water insects. Ecol Entomol 40:113–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12245

May R (2010) Tropical arthropod species, more or less? Science 329:41–42McCravy KW (2018) A review of sampling and monitoring methods for beneficial arthropods in

agroecosystems. Insects 9:170. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects9040170Menta C, Remelli S (2020) Soil health and arthropods: from complex system to worthwhile inves-

tigation. Insects 11:54. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11010054Minelli A, Boxshall G, Fusco G (2013) An introduction to the biology and evolution of arthro-

pods. In: Minelli A, Boxshall G, Fusco G (eds) Arthropod biology and evolution. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36160-9_1

Mora C, Tittensor DP, Adl S et al (2011) How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biol 9:e1001127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127

Nageleisen LM, Bouget C (2009) Forest insect studies: methods and techniques. Key consid-erations for standardisation. In: An overview of the reflections of the “entomological Forest inventories” working group (Inv. Ent. For.). Les Dossiers Forestiers no 19. Office National des Forêts, Paris

New TR (2017) Mutualisms and insect conservation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58292-4

Noriega JA, Hortal J, Azcárate FM et al (2018) Research trends in ecosystem services provided by insects. Basic Appl Ecol 26:8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.09.006

Novais SMA, Nunes CA, Santos NB et al (2016) Effects of a possible pollinator crisis on food crop production in Brazil. PLoS One 11:e0167292. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167292

Pisani D (2009) Arthropods (Arthropoda). In: Hedges SB, Kumar S (eds) The timetree of life. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 251–254

Price P, Denno R, Eubanks M et al (2011) Insect ecology: behavior, populations and communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975387

J. C. Santos et al.

11

Rader R, Bartomeus I, Garibaldi LA et al (2016) Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:146–151. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517092112

Ratcliffe NA, Mello CB, Garcia ES et al (2011) Insect natural products and processes: new treat-ments for human disease. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 41:747–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibmb.2011.05.007

Roy S, Roy MM, Jaiswal AK et  al (2018) Soil arthropods in maintaining soil health: thrust areas for sugarcane production systems. Sugar Tech 20:376–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-018-0591-5

Samways MJ (2019) Insect conservation—a global synthesis. CABI, WallingfordSamways MJ, McGeoch MA, New TR (2010) Insect conservation: a handbook of approaches

and methods. Techniques in ecology and conservation series. Oxford University Press, OxfordSánchez-Bayo F, Wyckhuys KAG (2019) Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its

drivers. Biol Conserv 232:8–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020Schoonhoven LM, van Loon JJA, Dicke M (2005) Insect plant biology. Oxford University

Press, OxfordSchowalter TD, Noriega JA, Tscharntke T (2018) Insect effects on ecosystem services—introduc-

tion. Basic Appl Ecol 26:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.09.011Stork NE (2018) How many species of insects and other terrestrial arthropods are thereon earth?

Annu Rev Entomol 63:31–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043348Stork NE, McBroom J, Gely C et al (2015) New approaches narrow global species estimates for

beetles, insects, and terrestrial arthropods. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:7519–7523. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502408112

Thomas JA, Telfer MG, Roy DB et  al (2004) Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303:1879–1881. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1095046

Wardhaugh CW (2015) How many species of arthropods visit flowers? Arthropod-Plant Interactions 9:547–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-015-9398-4

Zhang Z-Q (2013) Animal biodiversity: an outline of higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness (addenda 2013). Zootaxa 3703:1–82

Zhang Z-Q (2020) Animal biodiversity: an outline of higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness (Addenda 2013) (version 2013). In: Roskov Y, Ower G, Orrell T et  al (eds) Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life: 2020-02-24. http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col. Accessed 16 Apr 2020

1 Arthropods: Why It Is So Crucial to Know Their Biodiversity?

13© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021J. C. Santos, G. W. Fernandes (eds.), Measuring Arthropod Biodiversity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53226-0_2

Chapter 2Sampling and Analysis Methods for Ant Diversity Assessment

Jacques Delabie, Elmo Koch, Pavel Dodonov, Bianca Caitano, Wesley DaRocha, Benoit Jahyny, Maurice Leponce, Jonathan Majer, and Clea Mariano

The entomologist, in his routine work of inventory, may be seen to act as a generalist predator, finding a broad spectrum of prey, that is, typically the common species. Alternatively, he/she may

be seen too use another strategy, i.e. to sit and wait, typical of many specialists, which requires long periods of waiting.

(Espadaler and López-Soria 1991)

2.1 Introduction

Currently over 15,000 ant species are described out of an estimated total of 21,000 species on Earth (antwiki.org consulted on 10/17/2019). Among the arthropods that inhabit the ground or canopy of tropical forests, ants are ubiquitous and among the most abundant organisms, accounting for over 80% of canopy macroinvertebrate biomass (Majer 1992). Furthermore, it is estimated that ants, together with termites, represent one third of soil fauna biomass in a rainforest and four times that of all vertebrates combined (Beck 1967 cited in Fittkau and Klinge 1973). About 50% of ants in tropical forests may be associated with the soil, where they dominate and

J. Delabie (*) Laboratório de Mirmecologia, Centro de Pesquisa do Cacau/CEPLAC, Itabuna, Bahia, Brazil

Departamento de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais, Universidade Estadual Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil

E. Koch · W. DaRocha Laboratório de Mirmecologia, Centro de Pesquisa do Cacau/CEPLAC, Itabuna, Bahia, Brazil

P. Dodonov Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Rua Barão de Jeremoabo, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil

B. Caitano Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação da Biodiversidade, Universidade Estadual Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil

14

contribute high generic and specific richness (Ryder Wilkie et al. 2010). Due to their diversity, their high behavioral plasticity, and the high population density of these organisms in the local communities, ants play an important role in the dynamics of the environment. They contribute to the ecological balance of environments, and they are important in the energy and biomass flow and the overall structuring of communities of these terrestrial ecosystems (Folgarait 1998), especially in tropical regions. In terms of the biomass and omnipresence of these organisms and also their multiple effects on other species, ants constitute one of the dominant arthropod fam-ilies in tropical forests. They have a significant impact on all trophic levels as a result of their diet and their various types of associations with other animals, plants, or fungi. In addition, numerous ant species rely on plant-derived food resources such as fruits and seeds. Along with earthworms (Annelida) and termites (Arthropoda, Insecta, Isoptera), they are part of the select group of organisms collectively known as “ecosystem engineers” because they contribute to a majority of the ecological processes that structure environments (Jones et al. 1994; Folgarait 1998).

Social insects are notable for their nesting strategies, sometimes constructing complex structures or exploiting resources already available in the environment. An ant nest (or ant hill) can be defined as a physical structure built and occupied by these insects, a chamber or cavity produced by a plant housing them (domatia), or some other structure that is re-employed by the ants. For example, a nest can be constituted from a single cavity excavated by the workers or a dry leaf of a brome-liad epiphyte that houses the whole population of the colony to a very complex structure of several meters deep and more than 100 square meters of apparent area, which shelters more than 1,000,000 inhabitants (Forti et al. 2011; Antonialli-Junior et al. 2015). Nest contact with outside environment can be direct, as in the case of litter nests of species of the genera Neoponera Emery 1901, Odontomachus Latreille 1804, and Wasmannia Forel 1893, or it can take place through a system of galleries or passages that may end as a chimney as in the case of Ectatomma tuberculatum (Olivier 1792) and Acromyrmex balzani (Emery 1890), for example

B. Jahyny Laboratório de Mirmecologia do Sertão, Colegiado de Ciências Biológicas, Campus de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco, Petrolina, Pernambuco, Brazil

M. Leponce Biodiversity Monitoring and Assessment, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (RBINS), Brussels, Belgium

Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium

J. Majer School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

School of Biological Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

C. Mariano Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil

J. Delabie et al.

15

(Antonialli- Junior et al. 2015), or as a single or a set of orifices, such as in Atta spp. The diversity of such structures is illustrated on Figs. 2.1 and 2.2. Unlike the other social hymenopterans, immature ants are not reared in cells, and that leads to a high degree of interaction between colony individuals of all ages (Sudd and Franks 1987). The success in the use of space by colonies can be exemplified not only by the abundance and diversity of ants but also by the presence of other animals, mainly other arthropods, which may use the ant nest as a shelter or as a base for their own dispersal, as do commensals, inquilines, or parasites (Hölldobler and Wilson 1990; Lopes et al. 2015; Castaño-Meneses et al. 2015, 2017).

In the last 20 years, much new taxonomic, genetic, or ecological information has contributed to the general knowledge concerning ants around the world. New fron-tiers of biodiversity are being progressively explored, for example, with respect to the occurrence of numerous cryptic species (sensu Bickford et  al. 2007) among South American Ponerinae, to the genetic diversity of populations, and to their func-tional diversity or the richness of their interactions with other organisms (Delabie 2001; Chomicki and Renner 2017). All this has been made possible thanks to huge efforts in the field using diverse collecting methods and also to new insights gained from museum studies and biometric, genetic, biogeographic, and ecological analy-ses (Agosti et al. 2000).

A last question that is important to be considered relates to rareness. As pointed out by Espadaler and López-Soria (1991), the rarity of a species may be understood in several senses, with the most used arguments being that a rare species may have a small population size, a restricted geographical distribution, or a very specific habitat. However myrmecologists now agree that a rare ant is frequently an ant which has been inadequately sampled; many species are apparently very hard to be found since they are extremely specialized in their habitat or their behavior although, when adequately sampled, they can appear to be quite common (Espadaler and López-Soria 1991; Delabie et al. 2000b; Delabie and Reis 2000).

2.2 Sampling for Ant Taxonomy, Morphology, Genetics, or Ecology

2.2.1 General Considerations on Sampling

Much has already been said about ant sampling techniques (see the comprehensive work of Bestelmeyer et al. 2000, which is accessible online), but here we attempt to present a critical approach to the different available methods for sampling ants, their limitations, and their complementarity. We take into account the current demand for studies on ants in general and their communities in particular, which have exponen-tially increased during the last decades. In this section, we focus on sampling meth-ods for ant inventories; entire ant colony sampling for a range of purposes, such as behavioral, cytogenetic, or population studies’ and ant community studies (i.e.,

2 Sampling and Analysis Methods for Ant Diversity Assessment

16

Fig. 2.1 Overview of ground nest types. (a, b) Giant mounds of Atta vollenweideri, a leaf-cutting ant. (c) Numerous species nest in the leaf litter. (d) Mounds of needles and branch fragments in Formica species. (e) Earth mounds of Forelius ants. (f) Muddy nest of Pseudolasius along a trunk and sheltering ant-tended hemipterans. (g) Underground nest of Megaponera ants. (h) Underground nest of primitive attine ant. All pictures by Maurice Leponce

J. Delabie et al.